Jump to content

So, are the Roland JD and XV romplers really the best?

ExplodingBoy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
esiclene Newbie

esiclene

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Artur Meinild

Hmm... I'd hardly call a message board thread solid evidence, and I find it a somewhat hard to believe. The XV-3080 uses the newer SRX expansion boards which are 100% sampled at 44 kHz, so how can that be???

 

 

The specs were on old lilchips website (which worked with roland) but now has gone.

 

Anyway

Jv880, Jd990 are 44.1khz

jv1080,jv2080 xv3080 are 32khz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
urbanscallywag Newbie

urbanscallywag

Posted
  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Artur Meinild

Hmm... I'd hardly call a message board thread solid evidence, and I find it a somewhat hard to believe. The XV-3080 uses the newer SRX expansion boards which are 100% sampled at 44 kHz, so how can that be???

JD Chart

http://web.archive.org/web/20040415023556/www.lilchips.com/roland/info/jd-family.asp

 

Super JV Chart

http://web.archive.org/web/20040415025018/www.lilchips.com/roland/info/sjv-family.asp

 

XV Chart

http://web.archive.org/web/20040415030815/www.lilchips.com/roland/info/xv-family.asp

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Analog Kid Newbie

Analog Kid

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Artur Meinild

Hmm... I'd hardly call a message board thread solid evidence, and I find it a somewhat hard to believe. The XV-3080 uses the newer SRX expansion boards which are 100% sampled at 44 kHz, so how can that be???

 

 

They are right. Sorry i dont have a link for you though. sample frequency was one of the major differences between the JD-990 and JV-1080... other things it lost were the FX quality and some engine features like osc sync.

 

Also, after the JD, Roland went with an RDAC type compression scheme, thus the *when converted to linear format thing you see on rom sizes. All their expansion boards use this too.

 

These things are kept pretty unpublished, but you can find the specs out there. I dont know the full scope, but Aeon is an expert here, if he cared to pipe in.

 

On the 3080 it might only be the internal set which is at a lower sample freq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Analog Kid Newbie

Analog Kid

Posted
  • Members
Posted

a user on EX-Tech, Lapis, posted this.

 

 

Why most of roland sound module can't produce CD quality sound???? The final answer is here:

http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=005276;p=1

If you don't want to go there, here is a quote originally posted by MrDGreen:

 

(I'll "shorthand" 44.1k to 44k)

 

The S-700 series sampler engine could do up to 48k, although most of the later sample CDs were 44k only. Some of the oddball CDs you can still get include 32k and 44k (to save you some RAM space on the lower rate).

 

The XV-5080 uses a 44k engine, mainly to get compatibility with the S-700 samples, but the ROM set is 32k.

The newer units using the 5080 engine (Fantom, 5050, etc.) are actually using a 44k ROM set, so their internal sounds are superior.

Note that the SRX boards are 32k...

 

Roland's ROM compression system is 2:1, although the ROM's don't contain only waveforms, but also all of the "engine partial" parameters etc.

The method of compression is not sample dropping/skipping, but sounds more akin to MP3-like compression, where "unused" sonic data is stripped out to reduce the size of the file.

 

As far as geneology:

- the JD-990 and JD-800 were 44k (engine and waveform).

- the JV-1080 and 2080 engines were 32k (including waveform). This includes the XPs. Excluded is the XP-10 (GM).

- the JV/XV-series SR-JV80 Boards are also 32k.

- The XV-3080/88 are 32k.

- The XV-5080 is 44k with 32k ROM waveforms.

- The newer models using the 5080 engine are 44k with 44k ROM waveforms (so the internal sounds are a bit better).

- the XV-series SRX Boards are also 32k (most likely to give you more "sounds" per board, to be compatible with the XV-3080, and to be compatible with their previous development software in Japan).

 

Also note:

- most of the JV/XP synths use 18-bit DACs.

- the JV-2080 uses 20-bit DACs.

- the XV-5080 uses 24-bit DACs.

 

- the FX processors on the JV/XP/XV-3080/88 are 32k, while the later XV-5080 engine models use 44k FX processors, hence the reverbs, chorus, and modulation effects on the 44k models is much superior.

 

- The JD, JV, Super-JV, and especially the XV-5080 engines are all different "hardware".

Although they are *mostly* compatible concerning the sharing of "family" patch data, waveforms, etc., the actual hardware does differ.

Most notably is the XV-5080 engine. If memory serves me correctly, the 5080 was in development for over 5 years. It is the most powerful and lowest latency engine designed by Roland to date.

The engine was totally redesigned using current state-of-the-art hardware at that time.

Where it really shines the most, is in its sample playback capabilities. If any of you are using an XV-5080 only as a ROMpler, you really should purchase at least one sample CD and a SCSI CD Player and check it out. The sonic quality of the XV-5080 is spectacular, even surpassing (IMHO) the S-700 series since it has more parts, more voices, built-in 44k effects, and better 24-bit DACs.

 

 

 

Here's the thread

http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000427

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Analog Kid Newbie

Analog Kid

Posted
  • Members
Posted

As far as SRX- it does look like they've now gone to 44.1. I am guessing that anything that was collected from the old format, or anything that was pre Fantom, is probably 32k... also, dont be surprised if Roland merely changed sample rates to get to 44.1... which, as we all know is a bit of Tom Foolery, you cant increase resolution once something has been sampled.

 

Finding the truth out about Roland's stuff is like pulling teeth... Their LDX series of CD's are definately "full" resolution though. They sound nice, allthough time has already marched on and 44.1/16/32mb max isnt state of the art anymore, they sound more than nice coming from a S-7xx sampler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Analog Kid Newbie

Analog Kid

Posted
  • Members
Posted

you know the drill, you hit the post button... while you're cruising for ten minutes trying to cut the text.... then when I finally posted i managed to miss your post entirely.

 

So, please forgive me... didnt realize you'd already done the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Artur Meinild Newbie

Artur Meinild

Posted
  • Members
Posted

AK, the info you provide is very disturbing and very irrational as well. Now it seems Dave of Lil'Chips was informed about this, but it just seems very, very stupid, and I find it really hard to grasp that even Roland can be SO stupid.

However, what you say about the ROM and expansion boards being 32 KHz is NOT what the old Lil'Chips site says. There it specifically states, that the "data size" for all modules is 16-bit, 44.1 KHz and also specifically states that all expansion boards are 16-bit, 44.1 KHz. Now maybe some expansion boards are originally sampled at 32 KHz, but I simply refuse to believe that ALL boards and ROM are 32 KHz.

And this is exactly what puzzles me even more. Why bother with going down to 32 KHz engine when both the data size and the converters are at least 44.1 Khz? It would be much easier if they had just gone 44.1 KHz all the way, wouldn't it???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
midi Newbie

midi

Posted
  • Members
Posted

Gee did i start a math Roland debate? :)

 

All this and I have to worry about watching Dennis on the Weather Channel? (Im in Arizona, no 'canes here, just wildfires)

 

All in all, can most people tell the difference? Sure the JD990 has some extra sparkle but the polyphony and ROM was limited.

 

I still think the XV3080 had the best price/performance ratio.

 

They go for around $400 on eBay, i paid $900 when they were new. :mad: Oh well.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
DrJustice Newbie

DrJustice

Posted
  • Members
Posted

Ha. Don't fool yourself sizzlemeister :)

 

The intricacies of analogue are greater than that of digital. With even more to disagree about, speculate about and so on. Chances are that we'd be subjected to everything from the hardest science to the silliest of hi-fi mumbo-jumbo.... With digital, things are at least slightly more quantifiable.

 

DJ

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Analog Kid Newbie

Analog Kid

Posted
  • Members
Posted

ya, look at guitars... we get anal about whether they use a paper or nylong bobbin for the output transformers... whether the strings are a pure nickel wrap or an alloy, whether the pickup magnets are of this or that type and how many copper windings they used around it... Speaker magnets, paper, cabinet dimensions, wood type... sheesh! And then we get to the actual circuit of the amp, where there are many differences... and tubes! Goddy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
esiclene Newbie

esiclene

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Artur Meinild

AK, the info you provide is very disturbing and very irrational as well. Now it seems Dave of Lil'Chips was informed about this, but it just seems very, very stupid, and I find it really hard to grasp that even Roland can be SO stupid.

However, what you say about the ROM and expansion boards being 32 KHz is NOT what the old Lil'Chips site says. There it specifically states, that the "data size" for all modules is 16-bit, 44.1 KHz and also specifically states that all expansion boards are 16-bit, 44.1 KHz. Now maybe some expansion boards are originally sampled at 32 KHz, but I simply refuse to believe that ALL boards and ROM are 32 KHz.

And this is exactly what puzzles me even more. Why bother with going down to 32 KHz engine when both the data size and the converters are at least 44.1 Khz? It would be much easier if they had just gone 44.1 KHz all the way, wouldn't it???

 

 

Please forget numbers.

Choose a patch which is the same on Jd990 and xv3080 (i remember "Warm vibe") and play in both machines..difference is BIG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
esiclene Newbie

esiclene

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Artur Meinild



Which is presumably due to different filters and different converters more than different engines...

 

 

Uhm, but you can still sample and watch if it is decent bandwidth above 16Khz..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
Artur Meinild Newbie

Artur Meinild

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Uhm, but you can still sample and watch if it is decent bandwidth above 16Khz..

 

 

That's a good idea... It would be interesting to see if there is a drastic frequency drop at 16 KHz. Anyone with a XV-3080 care to make some samples and post a spectrum analysis? In fact I would love to see a comparison SA between JD-990, XV-3080 and XV-5080 just to be sure...

NOTE: SA on mp3 demos is useless, since they all drop off at 16 K or lower...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...